Evolutionists are not blind to this fact.

By the way we know gravity is real just like we know life is real not gravity=evolution. Now exactly what is gravity , just a law or a real force is debateable. Notice how some will compare gravity to  evolution instead of comparing it to living things. No matter if we believe life is ID or an accident it doesn't stop things from living.

Humans work well together for the best of their survival through social interaction as well.

You can't argue that there is a gentically programmed instinct that causes a monkey to share his rock hammer and anvil with another monkey when asked.  If you do argue that this is an instinct, then you can't argue that everything humans don't act by instinct.

Here's a video showing human behaivors of sharing and jealousy in monkeys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY  Heck, that first monkey has more 'morals' than many humans...

As one scientist warn before be careful impling morals to animals especially those that have been influenced by man. There is no doubt we, humans, can change animal behaviour including leaning toward our morals (good or bad).

About paleonthology. The humanoid tree of evolution is very shaky. The lack of missing links, the reinterpretation of fossils (like the one recently, a sensational bipedal guy is now considered four-pedal) is disturbing.

Dont worry, you dont offend me. As Ive said before, your instinct about me, it has some truth. I have a sceptical default stance yes, due to my religious world view. But I can play around with different scenarios, independent scenarios in my head at the same time. Like say.. the topic of evolution of morals as an example. I can see the logic up to a point (the evolution model, how morals evolved). But if I can sneak a big question mark or some doubt in there, why whouldn I? As long as I can truthfully say to my self that it's relevant and not just a "god of the gaps" cop-out.  You would too if it was a topic you were very sceptical of. Look, even Dawkins admits that the evolution of morals and altruism is very puzzling. So why do we never see those sort sof confessions by the evo-defenders in forum discussions like these? So it goes both ways, the bias and the rigid positions.

Especially in the bacteria example (lack of diversity and complexity). I actually find it laughable how the evo-guys refuse to acknowledge that problem no matter how I try to present it right under their noses. It's dishonest and weak, and proves that they're just as religious as I am. These debates are comedic from my point of view too.

This topic is exhaustive. I wish it was easier to debate, more fluid than to throw down text not even in your own language. Bedtime now for me, and tomorrow I cant reply until I get home from work very late in the evening.

In my mind morals come from humans, not god. Other social animals work together for the common good. Why should we be any different? We simply have more developed brains and thus the level of complexity in our society and the morality that goes along with it is neccesarily more complicated and nuanced.

As Christopher Hitchens says "Name one moral action that a believer can do and a non-believer cannot". Its simple, there isn't a single example (at least not one I've heard). And since there isn't, its not a very big leap to then assert that if an atheist can be just as moral as a theist then morals don't come from theology. They must come from something else.

So God kills every living thing on Earth every few hundred thousand years, then creates new but similar life on Earth?

Or did the millions and millions of other species that once inhabited this Earth miss the Ark?  With so many fossils out there, the world would have been very crowded and I'm sure there was a long line to get on the boat.  Let's not think about the fish that didn't make it past the flood and the fresh water and salt water problems, it would be best to ignore that.

In my honest opinion, why evolutionists claim that there is so much evidence for that theory, and none for creationism, is something that I just can't fathom. Simply put:

How does it even happen? Natural selection does just what it says; it selects from existing traits. It doesn't create new ones. No matter how a species mutates, whether through deletion, repetition, or interchange it never involves addition.

In what order did it happen? The human body has eleven systems. Ten are needed to survive, and the the other one to reproduce. So which one evolved first? They all need to work together. Even with systems, various organs are useless without the other pieces.

On top of that, there's one system that's useless without another system in a different body! How could the original species evolve two different sets of reproductive systems? Their interdependence means that they would have to evolve in the same environment at the same time. And even if that happened, how could each of them be more beneficial than asexual reproduction, but not more than each other?

How did it start? If evolutionists claim that they know a situation in which life can spontaneously arise from non-life (a reducing atmosphere and whatever else), then why can't they just lay our doubts to rest by recreating that situation in a lab and producing life?

I understand that scientific theories often don't answer every question, but at least they answer some fundamental questions. This theory of macroevolution just doesn't seem to answer anything.

Creationism isn't about a blind faith in any particular supernatural power, such as the God of the Bible or anyone else. That's a different discussion for a different time. All I'm saying is that I believe bacteria only produce bacteria and humans only come from humans, and that it makes more sense than the idea that humans come from bacteria.

It isn't arrogance. I'm perfectly fine admitting other possibilities, but when it comes to my field of study, then it's pretty obvious that I know more things than you do, thus it's only natural that I find some blatant gaps on your logic. And you're trying to imply something that isn't correct.

As I told you before and what you cannot seem to grasp, not because of lack of intelligence, but will to comprehend, is that bacteria doesn't need to evolve into complex organisms. Most species of bacteria are able to do, at the ribosomal, lysosomal and plasmid levels, what eukaryotic cells can only do when they're specified for a single purpose. 

For example, Cyanobacteria, are both able to do photosynthesis, ATP production and nitrogen fixation from organic sources in a single cell. Plants on the other hands, require a high number of specified cells to do it. While Eukaryotic cells have had a more complex evolution, solely on the fact specified eukaryotic cells can agglomerate to a large amount of tasks, they still lack some several means in which Bacteria can single handedly do similar tasks in a single Prokaryotic cell. 

One of the most extreme cases of bacteria dominant evolution over Eukaryotic cells is from the deinococcus radiodurans bacteria. It's extreme resistance to nuclear ionization radiation, ultraviolet and superoxide reducing agents it's mainly due to the synergy between it's chromosome and the two prominent plasmids, one of them is one of the largest plasmids in all bacteria. 

To draw a comparison, they can suffer an ionization radiation of over 5000 gy with almost 100% survival rate. In contrast, 5 gy is enough radiation to kill a human being, 600 gy kills almost all bacteria and 4000 gy kills the second class of bacteria most resistant to radiation.

This capacity has been an astounding discovery in the scientific community, due that the mechanisms for DNA repair that this bacteria has, has become one of the most valuable tools for bioremediation studies. 

As I told you, to consider bacteria has having limited evolution is pretty much a very naive and based on a very limited knowledge pool comment. You're drawing conclusions that complex life = more developed, which is extremely false.